User talk:Koavf/Archive058: Difference between revisions

User talk:Koavf archives

001 81 topics (2005-03-05/2006-03-07) 63 kb 002 56 topics (2006-03-07/2006-08-08) 44 kb 003 47 topics (2006-08-08/2006-09-14) 48 kb 004 60 topics (2006-09-14/2007-06-05) 73 kb 005 48 topics (2007-06-05/2007-08-21) 80 kb 006 35 topics (2007-08-21/2007-11-30) 73 kb 007 42 topics (2007-11-30/2008-02-19) 44 kb 008 34 topics (2008-02-19/2008-03-26) 46 kb 009 38 topics (2008-03-26/2008-04-19) 38 kb 010 39 topics (2008-04-19/2008-05-31) 60 kb 011 88 topics (2008-05-31/2008-08-04) 88 kb 012 40 topics (2008-08-04/2008-09-11) 61 kb 013 46 topics (2008-09-11/2009-04-13) 47 kb 014 60 topics (2009-04-13/2009-09-29) 50 kb 015 37 topics (2009-09-29/2009-11-21) 46 kb 016 22 topics (2009-11-21/2010-01-04) 22 kb 017 49 topics (2010-01-04/2010-02-18) 54 kb 018 63 topics (2010-02-18/2010-03-23) 63 kb 019 44 topics (2010-03-23/2010-05-02) 48 kb 020 46 topics (2010-05-02/2010-06-28) 56 kb 021 46 topics (2010-06-28/2010-09-01) 71 kb 022 54 topics (2010-09-01/2010-10-14) 43 kb 023 49 topics (2010-10-14/2010-11-26) 43 kb 024 54 topics (2010-11-26/2011-01-22) 37 kb 025 61 topics (2011-01-22/2011-06-08) 37 kb 026 43 topics (2011-06-08/2011-07-12) 39 kb 027 44 topics (2011-07-12/2011-08-15) 48 kb 028 44 topics (2011-08-15/2011-10-08) 42 kb 030 73 topics (2011-11-25/2012-02-17) 62 kb 031 47 topics (2012-02-17/2012-03-14) 74 kb 032 40 topics (2012-03-14/2012-04-15) 39 kb 033 41 topics (2012-04-15/2012-05-01) 43 kb 034 42 topics (2012-05-01/2012-05-30) 38 kb 035 58 topics (2012-05-30/2012-07-27) 73 kb 036 44 topics (2012-07-27/2012-09-03) 87 kb 037 41 topics (2012-09-03/2012-10-26) 61 kb 038 47 topics (2012-10-26/2012-12-01) 111 kb 039 56 topics (2012-12-01/2013-02-05) 78 kb 040 63 topics (2013-02-05/2013-05-14) 69 kb 041 71 topics (2013-05-14/2013-09-04) 135 kb 042 81 topics (2013-09-04/2014-01-09) 109 kb 043 53 topics (2014-01-09/2014-05-15) 69 kb 044 62 topics (2014-05-15/2014-09-17) 92 kb 045 123 topics (2014-09-17/2015-05-16) 156 kb 046 66 topics (2014-05-16/2015-11-11) 73 kb 047 91 topics (2015-11-11/2016-09-30) 113 kb 048 43 topics (2016-09-30/2017-01-09) 74 kb 049 67 topics (2017-01-09/2017-07-21) 96 kb 050 35 topics (2017-07-21/2017-09-11) 75 kb 051 50 topics (2017-09-11/2017-11-25) 83 kb 052 82 topics (2017-11-25/2018-06-13) 106 kb 053 99 topics (2018-06-13/2019-01-01) 219 kb 054 124 topics (2019-01-11/2019-09-23) 240 kb 055 89 topics (2019-09-23/2020-02-04) 190 kb 056 105 topics (2020-02-04/2020-06-20) 253 kb 057 61 topics (2020-06-20/2020-09-11) 158 kb 058 372 topics (2020-09-11/2022-09-10) 596 kb 059 71 topics (2022-09-10/2023-01-05) 98 kb 060 93 topics (2023-01-05/2023-06-05) 113 kb 061 156 topics (2023-06-05/2024-01-10) 262 kb Current discussion

Tennis performance timelines

Just as a heads up... the tennis performance charts are pretty locked by consensus guidelines as to formatting. Changing Naomi Osaka's chart made it quite different than all other charts so I changed it back per Tennis Project guidelines. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), See MOS:TABLECAPTION. All tables must have captions, please do not remove accessibility features of the site. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Not must. You also have to see that this table has a section title all its own... that is its caption. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), No, it isn't: table captions are part of the table. And yes, must: "All data tables need a table caption that succinctly describes what the table is about". It seems like you are confused here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I read it all and it is not "must" when you have a section titled the same. You seem to have left out the next sentence where it ... "is recommended as a best practice". We already have it right in the section header so its not needed to repeat it. It would look silly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), Yes, it is. "All data tables need a table caption that succinctly describes what the table is about" is very clear and there was recently an RfC on this. It doesn't say "All data tables need a table caption that succinctly describes what the table is about unless there are section titles" or "All data tables need a table caption that succinctly describes what the table is about, except for tennis articles". The blind deserve accessibility about this tennis player as much as any other topic on Wikipedia. Why are you fighting me on this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no it's not. Goodbye. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), Yes, it is. Why are you fighting me on this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Oomph! compilation albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Oomph! compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Bro, can you check out my edits on {{Template:Eminem}}, I think I messed up a lil'. ALso, between me 'n you, check out my previous edits if they're alright. Trust u. Peace ♥ L to the K (talk)

@L to the K: Happy to help and happy to have you helping me, brother. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please remove closing tags when you remove opening tags

When you remove opening small tags, please remember to remove the closing tags as well. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, Yeah, that seems like a really good idea. Thanks for cleaning up after me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Progressive rock albums by Tunisian artists

A tag has been placed on Category:Progressive rock albums by Tunisian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Nifelheim compilation albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Nifelheim compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

"Vanished (album)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Vanished (album). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 21#Vanished (album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Articles containing Sakha-language text

A tag has been placed on Category:Articles containing Sakha-language text requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Spook the Horse albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Spook the Horse albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Arrowverse task force‎

 As someone who has frequently edited the Arrowverse article in the past, you may be interested in participating in the newly created Arrowverse task force‎. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, I think I'll pass but thanks for the invitation. Have a good one and stay safe. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Req

Hi Justin

there are three pages on Ahmed Mansur but somehow one editor fixed it name but it is not yet patrolled could you kindly check? or the Wikipedia takes 90 days? the page is old btw. Ahmed_Mansur_(film_director) --39.34.149.145 (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:DeVotchKa live albums

A tag has been placed on Category:DeVotchKa live albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Neue Deutsche Härte compilation albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Neue Deutsche Härte compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Nifelheim live albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Nifelheim live albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Post-rock albums by Brazilian artists

A tag has been placed on Category:Post-rock albums by Brazilian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

Regarding your constant reverts to The Early Years 1965–1972: if you consider an article to have "bad HTML" as you put it, please consider improving the article, not simply deleting information. – Dyolf87 (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Dyolf87, Can you give me an example of information that I removed that was properly sourced? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Another month, another 3RR violation

Hey, Justin. Look, about your latest 3RR violation ([1][2][3][4]) — honestly, I'm a bit at a loss at what to do at this point. Newyorkbrad, BrownHairedGirl, perhaps you'd like to weigh in...? El_C 20:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

El C, It was really just two instances (with two reverts), I reverted myself, this is stale, and my self-reverted was itself reverted by another user. There is no systemic problem here as I reached out to the user on his talk page, the article talk page, and at a noticeboard asking for input (hence my self-revert was reverted). What is the problem here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

El C, Put alternately, had I clicked on the "restore this version" script twice it would have been the same effect as pressing "(undo)" four times. Are you telling me that the former would have been acceptable and the latter wouldn't? It's literally the exact same thing: see the page history. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Under the rule that consecutive edits count as one for revert-rule purposes, there was no violation here. More importantly, when Koavf realized that he was becoming embroiled in a revert cycle, he stepped back from it and posted to request others' input on the disputed material. Isn't that exactly what both you and I, in admittedly different ways, have encouraged him to do? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You are right. I have misread the diffs. Sorry Justin — I hope you will accept my apologies for this error and any distress it may have caused. El_C 00:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

El C, I've always respected your judgement and interest in making the project better. Thanks for the unnecessary apology, C. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for being gracious, Justin. El_C 00:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I see this has been resolved, and that everyone has kissed and made up. That's great.

But since I was pinged here and invited to weigh in, may I just gently note that El_C on 3RR patrol wrt Justin isn't a great look at this stage, even if the complaint had not been based on a misinterpretation of events. I am sure that the intentions are all good, but from some angles this looks a bit analogous to an overzealous traffic cop following a "usual suspect" to see if they make a minor error in their driving. I am sure that is not El C's intent, and that the misinterpretation was a thoroughly good faith human error of the sort we all make from time to time in assessing a complex series of diffs ... but I think a reduction in the levels of scrutiny would be beneficial to all involved.

Hope this helps. Best wishes to all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Underlying point understood and taken to heart. Thanks for being gentle. El_C 05:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

America First Policies

Sorry, but I'm not convinced that "American non-profit organization" gives anyone a clue as to what this organisation is. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Okay. I don't know what you want me to say in response in to this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually I thought you might have a suggestion for something that gives a clearer idea of what it is. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Seems fine per WP:HOWTOSD and it's 32 characters long whereas the limit is 40. If you have a better one, I'm all ears. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I've changed it to U.S. advocacy organization. 40 characters is good but not a limit set in stone, but I presume you agree with that. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Rock albums by Tunisian artists

A tag has been placed on Category:Rock albums by Tunisian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Mexican Drug War has been nominated for renaming

Category:Mexican Drug War has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Images on userpage

Hello, I noticed that on your userpage, the images on the top left and bottom right cross into the MediaWiki interface. Per WP:SMI, formatting which disrupt the MediaWiki interface, for example by preventing important links or controls from being easily seen may be removed or remedied by any user. On the desktop site, File:Banksy - Rat Photographer.jpg is displayed under and obscures the "Main page" link. It would be preferable if you could remedy this yourself. Thanks --17jiangz1 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

17jiangz1, Nope. Don't talk to me about this topic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: Why is that so?--17jiangz1 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

17jiangz1, It doesn't matter why: I told you to stop posting here about this topic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Since you seem to not want to discuss with me, I have raised this to ANI. Thank you. --17jiangz1 (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Living in a Ghost Town

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Living in a Ghost Town you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, Thanks, Kyle. This reminds me that I should pay this forward. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Very glad to have reminded you, maybe we'll be able to get this to GA status as quickly as today once I have completed the review? --K. Peake 09:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, Stern but fair. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Living in a Ghost Town

The article Living in a Ghost Town you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Living in a Ghost Town for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Live dark cabaret albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Live dark cabaret albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Whitesnake remix albums has been nominated for deletion

Category:Whitesnake remix albums has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. JJPMaster (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Albums produced by Manny Lehman (disc jockey)

A tag has been placed on Category:Albums produced by Manny Lehman (disc jockey) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Algeria national football team

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Algeria national football team has been proposed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 8#Category:Wikipedians who like Cocotama. – Fayenatic London 11:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

John Coltrane Offering page

Hello. Many thanks for your edits / fixes to my recent changes to the Coltrane Offering page. I hope you don't mind a quick question. I've made a number of edits over the past ten months (for ex. October Revolution in Jazz) and nearly all of them use the inline form of referencing. Can you please tell me why the use of inline references was incorrect in the Offering page, as per your comment ? Again, thank you for your time and help.Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Helen Puffer Thwait, No worries, Helen, and again, thanks for your work. It's incorrect there because a different style is used on the page. See WP:CITEVAR. Since there was an established way of doing things, it's not appropriate to change it without some strong consensus. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Got it! Many thanks for taking the time to clarify this. Stay well! Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Helen Puffer Thwait You too! Thanks for your great work around here and let me know if there's anything that I can do for you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

SNL / Maddie Rice

 01:57, 11 October 2020‎ Koavf 12,903 bytes 0‎ →‎Episodes
 01:57, 11 October 2020‎ Koavf 12,862 bytes -41‎ →‎Notes
 02:01, 11 October 2020‎ Koavf 12,665 bytes -197‎ WP:V Tag: Reverted
 02:22, 11 October 2020‎ Jhawkinson  m 12,862 bytes +197‎ Undid revision 982901526 by Koavf (talk); It's as Verifyable as anything else in this article. Tags: Undo Reverted
 02:28, 11 October 2020‎ Koavf 12,665 bytes -197‎ Undid revision 982904116 by Jhawkinson (talk) No, other things are sourced. Add a source. Tag: Undo

Justin: Take a look at the Saturday Night Live (season 46) history (and I don't just mean the ones I quoted above. In fact, I don't mean them at all. I mean the edits made by people other than you or myself). The vast majority of edits and facts regarding the content of episodes are unsourced, or at least, nominally sourced to the episode. If you think there isn't good enough sourcing, you should be adding Template:citation needed in preference to removing information, unless there is serious reason to question it. I don't want to engage in edit warring, but I'd ask you to justify your edit here in comparison to all the other edits to the article that have similarly weak justification.

Relatedly, your edit summaries…leave something to be desired. Here you offered no summary at all, and in your SNL edit your summary was only understandable when read in context with the diff ("Verifiable?" "WHAT needed to be verifiable?" A person would have to read the diff to find out.). The summaries are especially helpful to people browsing an extremely-rapidly edited article's history like in Saturday Night Live (season 46). There should also be more than simply the section name, as in your other edits (above). Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thank you for your attention! jhawkinson (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Jhawkinson, What is all this? Why are you posting here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Jhawkinson, "you should be adding Template:citation needed in preference to removing information, unless there is serious reason to question it" No, I shouldn't. All information needs a source: the burden is not on me to wait around until someone finds a way to justify every hoax and lie on this site, it's on the person who adds the information. Whomever added this claim learned it from somewhere, so just post "[x] is true<source>" instead of "[x] is true" (just believe me). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Justin. My above are comments regarding your recent edits, left on your own talk page, which is how Wikipedia editors communicate with each other; I also incoporated Template:uw-es, the standard text for asking editors to improve their edit summary "game," which I hope was not too confusing. See WP:OWNTALK and WP:UOWN, but perhaps you were speaking rhetorically?

Your position above cannot be correct — if it were true, there would be no purpose whatsoever to Template:citation needed. Rather, it is always a judgment call whether information should be removed or that template (or similar) added; you can disagree with me on result of that judgment call, but I do not think you can reasonably disagree that it is a judgment call. I'm the editor who added the information (at least initially; although it was subsequently edited by several others). No source was given because, like most of the information in that article, it comes from watching the episode. A reasonable person might apply the normal rules of Wikipedia and say, "Well, that's original research, it should be removed." But if we were to apply that standard, the vast majority of edits to the article would be removed. And, although the number of edits to the article is much much greater than the number of facts in the article (because most facts are edited many times), even if you review the article, you'll find that most facts are not well-sourced. This is even true if you limit your analysis to the bulleted (•) facts. So, it's striking to me that you would attempt to enforce that rule for one fact, but not for the many others similarly-situated. That's why it's my intention to revert your removal. As for adding a source, again, look at the article. One could claim "[x] is true<source>the episode itself, watch it</source>" but it would be silly to do that for one fact and not the many others to which it applies. I'm certainly prepared to listen if you have reason(s) why the edits in question are different from all others (that's why we're having this conversation!), or if this is merely the first salvo in a fusillade of sourcing-based removals of facts from SNL wikipedia pages. If so, you really ought to raise the issue on the article's Talk page, because I have only edited the article a handful of times, but there are many editors who spend quite a lot of time on it, and they should have something to say about such a sea change in editorial values. But absent that, I expect I will revert your removal, since you can't seem to distinguish it. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 06:3[2, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Jhawkinson, That's a big wall of text. Does the episode have credits that list her? If so, those could be sourced or at least added as an HTML comment. Also, please don't be pedantic to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Justin, that's just how I talk, it seems like a pretty small "wall" as such things go, considering words used for relevant points made. The episode credits do indeed list her, and that was referenced in an edit summary (here ironically in a reversion about notability) and there was also a more fulsome comment pair that explained (here but then removed here for unclear reasons). Saying "please don't be pedantic to me" is like saying "please don't be logically focused on your arguments"; it's not something you can reasonably say to another person, and certainly not on Wikipedia.

I think, also, many of your recent edits to other pages in the SNL family (to Template:Saturday Night Live, SNL 46, SNL Band, and perhaps to Chloe Fineman) raise similar issues about WP:OR and the factual standard for those edits. Perhaps most importantly, because you omit edit summaries or don't indicate what you're doing there, people who don't monitor those pages in careful detail (ironically…non-pedants?) are likely unaware of the quantity of information you have removed from those pages. We should probably move this discussion to Talk:Saturday_Night_Live_(season_46) although perhaps there's a better forum. Would you care to initiate that? I don't really have a lot of experience with the SNL family of Wikipedia pages, so I defer to you, but I'm happy to begin if you like. jhawkinson (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Jhawkinson, I'm happy to discuss whatever with you but I don't understand what there is to discuss: we can't add unsourced information. I don't know what else I should say. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, the question is how to address the general issue of sourcing in the SNL family of articles, which are weakly sourced overall but aggregate a lot of verifiable information that lacks sourcing. My specific concern was why you singled out my edits when they are consistent with the prevailing pattern of edits to those articles, although I think we've addressed my particular issue. jhawkinson (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Jhawkinson, I don't think there are outstanding questions on how to source things but again, happy to provide my feedback if you think I have a valuable perspective. I didn't single out your edits. Thanks for sourcing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bloodroot (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contemporary classical.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Albums produced by Michael Lloyd (music producer)

A tag has been placed on Category:Albums produced by Michael Lloyd (music producer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Living in a Ghost Town

The article Living in a Ghost Town you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Living in a Ghost Town for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging

Never, under any circumstances, ping me anywhere on Wikipedia, now and forever. And that includes pinging me for a response to this message. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Can do. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

The Capitol Albums, Volume 1

added a link pointing to Catalogue number

The Capitol Albums, Volume 2

added a link pointing to Catalogue number

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

American Utopia

Hi, koavf - lol, now it is completely unreadable. If this should be the "correct" or 'right' way (show me, please) I'll never edit anything again, man (at least I'll have to check before, if you are involved).

It reminds me of the discography tables, that were presumably designed for pop artists, but are used for jazz as well (as the determined way), with prominent but blanc chart columns, where all valuable information is 'hidden' (unsortable) in one sole column (eg. Miles Davis discography). I find it easier to look after referenced numbers than search and read the titles again and again in a huge block of text (imagine on a phone's screen) – maybe I am the only one (I use it everywhere for credits).

I can't fathom those decisions, as to sort musicians A-Z, instead of organizing them in a musically meaningful way (lead intruments to rhythm sec, then production); especially when there is obviously a brass or string section it makes no sense to name them in an abstract A-Z scheme, instead of summarizing them – or that "production" is not an instrument etc. (One possibility, I can think of, to make some sense of it is to c+cmd-f the titles and highlight all; but if you take "Bullet" for example, it remains hard to connect them to the refenced instrument, because there is so much text in between).

The point I can respect is when there is already a style established in an article. So, sorry about that (even if there was barely something). But, like I said, I'll try to avoid "your parts" of the wikipedia in the future; appreciation of hours of work undone is limited. I hope, it does not sound to rude./ I leave it to you and wish you the best, MenkinAlRire 21:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

MenkinAlRire That's exactly it: there was an established style. See WP:ALBUMSTYLE. I'd like to collaborate with you in the future as no one here owns any article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverting

Koavf Thanks for fixing a small blunder of mine. As a general question, is there a better/preferred way to revert a recent change than using the "undo" button, as I did on American_Beauty_(album)? Thanks. Finney1234 (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Finney1234, I think the undo feature is really helpful if there's a user account (i.e. not an IP address) because it will ping that person. If not, then "Restore This Version" is helpful: I'm pretty sure that I have this option because I have a script installed but I can't recall which one it is. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Does the "undo" feature work cleanly if there have been additional modifications between the current time and when the change you plan to undo was created? Finney1234 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Finney1234, That totally depends: if the software can segregate out just the parts you are undoing, it will but if there are sufficiently complicated subsequent edits, it can't always just undo the bits you want undone. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Borat Subsequent Moviefilm

added a link pointing to Patient zero

My Echo

added a link pointing to No Depression

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that there is any, but...

Give me a minute to try and find some documentation about that. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 20:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Dawnseeker2000, Sure, you can write me whenever. But I don't see the value in "16[line wrap]December" or "Jean-Claude Van[line wrap]Damme". Non-breaking spaces are very useful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You're probably already aware of this, but it might be easiest to go straight to the source to get an answer on this. The removal of non-breaking spaces will occur whenever an editor uses either of Ohconfucius's date formatting tools. Both User:Ohconfucius/AWB modules/dmy and User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js remove nbsp's when run. Dawnseeker2000 01:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Dawnseeker2000, I was not thanks but you saved the edit. Why did you save it and remove those non-breaking spaces? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Borat Subsequent Moviefilm

I'd be interested to know how adding 4 words in clarification "makes the plot too long." Thanks! Pediadoctor (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You wrote "did you see the note at the beginning?" - the plot section should stand on its own; not everyone would read the "beginning." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pediadoctor (talk • contribs) 23:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Pediadoctor, It has to be at most 700 words and it's literally immediately before where you started editing. How did you not see it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

"How did you not see it?" - again, because I went STRAIGHT TO THE PLOT. Why is that so hard to understand? Anyway, I really don't give a damn. Have a nice day. Pediadoctor (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Pediadoctor, The first thing the plot section says is "This plot needs to be at most 700 words". If you went straight there, you went straight to that comment. How did you not see it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I told you I don't care. Please stop bothering me. Have a nice day. Pediadoctor (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Pediadoctor, Dude, get off my talk page with that gross attitude. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

the current archbishop of Canterbury

In the article Justin (name), please use the capitalization as specified in MOS:JOBTITLES, which states that even specific formal titles are in lower case when they are preceded by a modifier (in this case "current" is a modifier). Chris the speller ^yack 19:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Chris the speller, Nice. Thanks! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Funk albums by United States Virgin Islands artists

A tag has been placed on Category:Funk albums by United States Virgin Islands artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Free jazz video albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Free jazz video albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Punk jazz video albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Punk jazz video albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Rhythm and blues albums by United States Virgin Islands artists

A tag has been placed on Category:Rhythm and blues albums by United States Virgin Islands artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Article titles vs content and topics

With respect. I believe that you have misunderstood the WP:Disambiguation guideline:

No slight intended In ictu oculi (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, None's taken. This is a confusing message but not an offensive one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

My American Beauty changes

You never answered my reason for changing it back with a compelling reason. All you did is hide behind editwar BS. So why does EVERY OTHER FREAKIN' PAGE all look the same EXCEPT for American Beauty?????? Answer me this Daddy-O????? --Spoondivy (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Spoondivy, I don't know..................................................................................................... ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Right then....so I'm changing it back to the way I had it. --Spoondivy (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Spoondivy, "I'm changing it back to the way I had it" because I feel like it is what edit warring is. I gave you a reason to not do this: stop it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not comparing all of the track listing styles for every page, only the studio album pages. So that's a stretch to go hunting for a page that fits your style and to use that as an argument. Now we go to arbitration because I believe I'm right. --Spoondivy (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Spoondivy, Right about what?! You've been shown several times that you shouldn't do what you're doing. What is your basis for this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brian Wilson - Our Prayer.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brian Wilson - Our Prayer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

Greetings,

Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.

Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Re: Template talk:Christian denomination tree

Koavf, I beleive that it would be questionable to not include the Pentecostals if theological influence is our concern. This is important as there is a direct Pentecostal influence on the Charismatic movement and by extension the Evangelical movement which heavily draws upon if not outright embraces Charismatic theology. If we are going to construct a Christian denomination tree based upon theological influence, then the Pentecostals should be included in some manner.

Also, I will repeat my earlier statement on the talk page of that template that Evangelicalism is not a denomination, but rather a movement that draws upon earlier theological thought from various Protestant movements and denominations. I believe that a similar discussion has occurred in the past regarding Arminianism which you deemed to be a movement, and not as a denomination. Keeping Evangelicalism on the template would be contradictory to your past standards for a denomination.

Anyways, I will keep the template as it was before my edits in order to keep the peace. Feel free to discuss potential improvements to this template with me. I really would like to cooperate as this template helps readers to better understand the development of Christianity. Leiwang7 (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Leiwang7, I think that's legit. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Would it be better if I were to simply replace Evangelicalism with Pentecostalism on that template? I will not make any other changes to that template. Please tell me if you would approve such a change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiwang7 (talk • contribs)

@Leiwang7: I don't know that they should be replaced: evangelicalism is a huge movement in Protestantism. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I know that evangelicalism is a huge movement in Protestantism, but evangelicalism is not a denomination as there is not any standard evangelical creed/statement and worship/service practices among any evangelical church. I do see your point as evangelical theology and service practices are quite different to older mainline/non evangelical denominations. I would like to add Pentecostalism to the template without removing Evangelicalism then, but I don't know how to modify the template for additional denominatins. Perhaps, you can do it if you know how to do so, or get someone else who knows to make the change. Leiwang7 (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Leiwang7, These are good questions for WT:CHRISTIANITY. Thanks for working with me on this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for reading my comments. I will go to WT:CHRISTIANITY, and ask them on how to proceed with this template. Leiwang7 (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Category talk:The Christian Science Monitor people has been nominated for renaming

Category:Category talk:The Christian Science Monitor people has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwirkle (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Track listings for Neil Young Archives Vol. I and II pages

So I have been editing the text for the The Archives Vol. 1 1963–1972 page for over a decade, ever since this set was released back in 2009. It's me that originally formatted the track list so that all of the individual credits are listed for each song (players, recording date, studio, producers, etc.). As a member of various Neil Young fan communities and Facebook groups, people have told me that it was hard to distinguish what was unreleased on that set from what was previously released (since A LOT of the tracks on Vol. 1 were of previously released material). This is why I had originally bolded any "previously unreleased" text on that page years ago; it was an effort to make it easier for fans to make that distinction in the future. When the track list for Neil Young Archives Volume II: 1972–1976 was announced, I did the same thing with the songs that were previously unreleased on that set, as well as edited song credits as Neil has added songs from that set to his website. However, I noticed that this change was undone, so I reverted it, and then today noticed it was undone again with a note saying that it was "ugly" (paraphrasing). I then reverted these changes, but sent a note explaining that people have told me that they like when songs that are previously unreleased are notated in bold (again, to distinguish these songs amongst all of the other info in that track list), as well as to keep a sense of continuity between the two pages. What I did not appreciate is that, instead of trying to understand things from this perspective, or reaching out to me to describe specifically what you object to about this, you not only undid those changes, but then proceeded to undo the bolding on the Vol. 1 page, as well. Bolding and text that stood literally unchanged for a decade. So essentially what I am saying is that the bolding that I had on both of these pages was not only appreciated by hundreds of Neil Young fans, but requested by them, and I would really appreciate it if you could understand this and accept that this bolding makes it easier for them to know (or reference in the future) what tracks on this set are unreleased, instead of having to read through a bunch of plain white text to find this out. Thank you. 2600:8800:6780:1CE3:B44A:D8DB:5FB4:D4D9 (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you read MOS:BOLD? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Son you can take that warning about a personal attack ay shove it up your ass!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoondivy (talk • contribs)

Using |code= with = in the parameter

Hey there. Sorry for being unclear here. You left some |code= with = in the parameter, which broke them. I probably should have just corrected them, but I did not know if I will have the time so I reverted first and then went on to fix them. Anyway, it should be all fixed now and all should be well. Cheers! --Muhandes (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Muhandes, Teamwork makes the dream work! Thanks for fixing it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Black Is and Rise

Thank you for creating the pages for the Sault albums – was meaning to do them this past week but never time to do it! Richard3120 (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120, For sure. I'm doing 5 and 7 today, too. Thanks for all your work, Richard. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of South Park (season 24)

Please do not create hoaxes on Wikipedia, as you did at South Park (season 24). Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SanAnMan (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

SanAnMan, lolwtfbbq? What's wrong with you? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of South Park (season 24) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article South Park (season 24) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Park (season 24) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SanAnMan (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanAnMan (talk • contribs)

SanAnMan Please sign your posts on my talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of dispute resolution

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Stephen Stills concert tours

A tag has been placed on Category:Stephen Stills concert tours requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Mental illness categories

• Koavf, have you done many edits like this? The category is entirely empty. Apparently, if you don't have a modern diagnosis, you had no mental illness, despite spending many years in asylums, and the evidence of many of your family and friends. This is incredibly disrespectful to the memory of people with mental illness. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  Johnbod, No, I haven't and no it's not: you could just as easily say that everyone locked up for being a homosexual deviant and categorizing them as having had "mental illness" is incredibly disrespectful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well somebody must have been. I will revert your edit anyway. "Vagueness" goes with the territory, and mental illness was not invented in America in the 1950s. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, See WP:OR and WP:V. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. There are tons of sources on Meryon's mental illness. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

What a truly unbelievable comment! I'm amazed. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, Which of the nine sources in the article supports that statement? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

There are only 2 "references" - I haven't seen the others, which probably aren't all needed in FR. The answer is OF COURSE both - from EB "A few years after the completion of his Paris series he was lodged in the madhouse of Charenton. Its order and care restored him for a while to health, and he came out and did a little more work, but at bottom he was exhausted. In 1867 he returned to his asylum, and died there in 1868". You could and should have checked that yourself. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This edit is VANDALISM. Any biography of longer than 100 words of Meryon will tell you this. If you don't like it for some reason, complain on talk, or tag it. Don't just remove it. I have been in the process of expanding Meryon's bio, and have now begun a section on his mental illness, using the 20+ pages on the subject in Collins, Roger, Charles Meryon: A Life, 1999, Garton & Company, ISBN 0906030358, 9780906030356. NO MORE VANDALISM here please. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

THIS IS ALSO VANDALISM tag, don't just remove, or better yet, just keep away from articles which people are trying to, you know, actually improve. Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Removing unsourced information is not "vandalism". Since you seem unfamiliar with our policies on verifiability and original research, I suggest that you read them before you add more unsourced information to the encyclopedia. I also suggest that you read WP:VANDALISM and please point out which part of that page indicates that my edits were "vandalism". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, Removing unsourced information is improving the articles. See also {{in use}}, which you can apply to articles where you may be editing for a bit and want to alert other editors. Please read our pages on drafts and userspaces/sandboxes to learn more about how collaboration works on this site. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't need your advice on how to write articles, thank you. You've never done much of it. You advising people on how to collaborate is pretty much of a joke too - look at our respective talk page pages. I repeat, if you don't like something, either do some minimal research to see it if might actuallty be correct, or tag it. Don't just remove it. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, I will always remove unsourcd information: it's not my job to prove your claims. Also, lol@ me not writing much here. Preposterous. Please don't post lies to my talk page, thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I, and many others, will continue to revert lazy removals of what should be tagged. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, Speaking of lazy, please correctly indent comments so that talk pages are not hostile to the blind. It seems that you are unfamiliar with the burden of proof broadly as a concept and our core content policy at WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". I will continue doing as the site's co-founder Jimmy Wales recommended 15 years ago: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." If you need more help with our policies, please let me know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No thanks, as I've told you before, you are the last person I'd ask for any such advice. Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, No one asked you, don't post hateful comments here, follow our policies, and don't be hostile to the blind. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You asked me ("please let me know") . Don't understand the blind bit, but never mind. Please don't ping me. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please re-read: I said if you need help, then ask. You didn't ask for help (tho you clearly need it). I suggest that you read more about our accessibility guidelines at MOS:ACCESSIBLE. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:South Park (season 24) episodes

A tag has been placed on Category:South Park (season 24) episodes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Strange edits to World Wide Web

I'll concede that most of your changes are defensible on the grounds that the Web was invented in Europe and therefore it makes more sense to use the British date convention. The one major issue I have is that you also altered a date in a document title field of a citation from September 10, 1993 to 10 September 1993. That is problematic because in citations, the tradition is to exactly quote the title of the thing cited. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, Good eye--thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Pete Davidson

Thanks ... good catch. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Tenebrae, No worries: thanks for removing the gossip. I wish we didn't have any of that here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Fugging

I've just watchlisted the Fugging page and found that you recently reverted a move by Steven a91. I was unaware of this when I put in a requested move. You might want to take a look and maybe comment there. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

sub and sup

Hi, regarding this edit in bromine, introducing {{sub}}, {{sup}}. At first glance, it looks trivial and so unnecessary. Then, reading the {{sup/doc}} it says: "a good candidate for substituting (i.e. {{subst:sup}})", which would ... reintroduce the tags. So to me it does not look like a useful edit. Are there ideas I do not see? If not, I'd suggest not making such edits. Have a nice edit, -DePiep (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

DePiep, Help:HTML in wikitext says to prefer MediaWiki markup to raw HTML. Agreed that this one is a little silly if you're going to substitute it but templates are easier and to input than tags, so unless the page is nearing its maximum amount of transclusions, that would be a reason to keep them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I understand that you take a hardline view of WP:V's application to unsourced content, but this absolutely does not give you license to edit war to unilaterally turn established pages into redirects. You must establish consensus at Page's talk page, AfD, or another suitable venue before doing so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, As I have already told you: AFD says the exact opposite. Why do you keep on writing this when it contradicts you? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

For context for any talk page stalkers, Justin converted the awards page to a redirect, I reverted after several editors raised concerns at Page's talk page, and he subsequently edit warred to force the redirect.

Regarding your argument that AfD is not for pages the nominator thinks should be converted to redirects, it's used all the time for that purpose, and the part you quoted explicitly refers to uncontested redirects, not all redirects. And even if AfD is not the proper forum, that would mean Page's talk page is, and there is absolutely no way to construe the discussion so far there as consensus for your edit. You're an experienced editor and you know what consensus means. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

For anyone else here wondering what Sdkb did, there is a thread on his talk page but he is curiously not responding. WP:V and WP:OR require us to cite information, particularly in biographies of living persons. Please do not add unsourced information to Wikipedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don't assume my gender, and by "thread" he means this. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I didn't. Also, if you don't want to fork, then keep the discussion at the original post which is on your talk. You had no need to post here at all, which you know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, Why are you inserting unsourced information into Wikipedia? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I cite the information I insert into Wikipedia. Reverting your unilateral conversion of an established page into a redirect is quite different. Again, if you feel so confident in your position, go establish a consensus that the page should not exist until it's properly sourced. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, As I have already told you: Please see WP:BLP (emphasis in original): "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Please also see Wikipedia:Core content policies. Let me know if there are more rules here that you aren't familiar with that may aid you in editing. And as I have also already told you (emphasis in original): "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Which rules don't apply to you but only apply to everyone else? Is there some way to know ahead of time so that I don't bother you by pointing you to our core content policies? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking through your block log, I see that this is part of a pattern. I'll bow out here since I see another editor has restored the page, but courtesy pinging blocking admin Joe Roe in case the conduct issue here warrants follow-up. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, Yes, please do stop badgering me about this and follow the rules. You're a rude person who just ignores all my questions and thinks that rules don't apply to you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – Joe (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Koavf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have every right to revert twice and I did post to the talk page as well as the other user's talk (which was ignored). This is also stale, as the article now has actual citations, which it should have had the entire time. See User_talk:Koavf#Reverts: am under no special editing restrictions that disallow me from making two reverts to a page, just like anyone else and there is no chance of me harming the encyclopedia by reverting because sources have been added to the article in question. (Even if they hadn't been, I wouldn't have broken WP:3RR. If the community wants to put me on some 1-RR restriction, they can but they haven't, so I shouldn't be punished for breaking a rule that doesn't exist. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC) }―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As stated at WP:EW: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." 3RR is not an entitlement to any particular number of reverts; you can be determined to be edit warring with fewer than 3 reverts. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry to butt in here but Justin you're well aware of WP:RFD by now and you're well aware that if reverted you would need to stop the reverting and seek consensus for that change (be it at the talkpage or RFD), Whether the article's cited or not is irrelevant - you still edit warred which is the crux of the issue here.

You've been blocked 3 times this year alone for edit warring and despite the various unblocks with commitments we're back here yet again with you being blocked. I'm not lecturing you but it's hard to defend you or say "you deserve another chance" when you've had countless chances this year and last year. Your promises or commitments just sort of mean nothing after a while when you're reblocked for the same thing again. –Davey2010^Talk 09:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The issue above is indeed exactly the same thing I blocked you for before. Since then, you have been blocked for edit warring a further three times and each time you promised to stop doing this kind of thing [5][6][7]. Enough is enough. WP:V is not an exemption to our fourth pillar, consensus, nor is lack of references an exemption to the deletion policy. I can't take in good faith your contention that you do not know that AfD can be used for proposed blank-and-redirects, because you've been told otherwise many times: you seem to be conveniently overlooking the word "uncontested" when you quote from WP:AFD, as well as WP:ATD-R, which says Suitable venues for seeking a consensus if a redirection is challenged include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, and WP:DEL-REASON, which says Reasons for deletion include [...] Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. In any case, if you don't want to use AfD, use the talk page. It doesn't matter where consensus-building happens as long as it is happening, rather than you edit warring to impose your preferred outcome.

Personally, I'm not willing to unblock you this time unless you are willing to agree to a formal sanction that will stop this disruptive edit warring. Although you are of course welcome to appeal to another admin or at WP:AN. – Joe (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Joe Roe, If the community has some kind of formal rule about my editing, I'll obey it (which, to be clear, has happened before and said rules have been lifted after long-term compliance with them). Right now, I'm not under any reverting restriction that anyone else doesn't have. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring is unconstructive regardless of how many reverts you make. That and the fourth pillar are the "rules" that you have repeatedly broken. There is no way that an editor of your experience does not know this. – Joe (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Joe Roe, Edit-warring is not constructive, that is correct. As I stated above, if there is some formal sanction on my editing, I'll follow it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010, I am aware of RfD and I didn't think it needed to be invoked because I didn't think it should be deleted. It would be up to some other user to propose it there, not me. I am under no special editing restriction that I'm not allowed to revert twice and if you look above, that is exactly what happened at this thread: User_talk:Koavf#Reverts. I posted to a relevant talk page and the user's talk page as well in the interim. It is not justified to block me from editing the encyclopedia indefinitely.

Koavf, I am willing to grant you a conditional unblock. Since you've already implied you could live with a 1RR restriction we would do that. However, before I could agree with that I would need a sense that you understand that edit warring is not strictly about number of reverts. That is the piece that seems to be missing in the discussion about this incident so far. Without that I worry we'd end up with you once again blocked and being confused about why after engaging in some kind of edit war that didn't strictly violate 1RR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

0RR would be more appropriate; the flashpoint here seems to be when another editor reverts koavf, typically after he removes content. The time to start a discussion is then, when the edit is contested, not one round of edit warring later.

However, given the tedious repetition of this same issue over the last year, and the amount of community effort his last appeal sucked up, I think a cooling-off period before any unblock is in order. Possibly also a wider discussion on what unblock conditions would be acceptable, or whether he should be unblocked at all. – Joe (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought about whether suggesting 0RR was more appropriate and don't think it is because of concerns I have about enforcement and because in my search I saw no active 0RR unblock conditions imposed. In terms of your idea that a larger discussion and/or some time away from the project might be more appropriate (I am intentionally not saying a cooling-off period) that's fair and very well might be correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, this is a bad idea. Koavf has shown repeatedly that they do not understand what edit warring is (or they think they're entitled to edit war anyway), that they do not learn from past mistakes, and that they rapidly forget commitments they make when appealing their many blocks. This is their twenty-first block in fifteen years specifically for edit warring, among numerous other blocks for different repeat issues. Many of those blocks have been successfully appealed, but here we are again, for the 21st time. Six of those edit-warring blocks were enforcement of an Arbcom 1RR restriction that they agreed to but then repeatedly violated anyway. They agreed just in July this year that they would not edit-war but seek discussion and mainstream dispute resolution when they encounter content disputes, and were re-blocked less than a month later for, you guessed it, edit warring. In my opinion this appeal should be reviewed by the community. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

In particular I'm concerned that they seem to be saying they will only follow our written policies if the community explicitly and directly says that they, individually, must do so, especially because they have not followed such restrictions in the past. That's not how policies work. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ivan, I am also concerned that they seem to be saying that they will only follow our written policies if it's explicitly stated. And the idea that he would only respect something the community told him is, for me, a reason not to go take this to AN/ANI for a community, rather than individual administrator, imposed block. At least so far in this conversation I don't see Koavf saying all the right things - saying that because he didn't violate 3RR is explicitly incorrect. My offer is/was genuine but was dependent on that ability to convince that edit warring wasn't just about counting edits but I respect the idea that you and Joe and Davey are saying that this editor is simply out of chances. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I get what you're saying, Barkeep. Part of the reason I suggest this should go to a community review is because I would think, on the face of it, someone with 38 entries in their block log (not all of them blocks, and not all of them valid, to be fair) would be an obvious candidate for a site ban (as in, someone who has been blocked for the same thing so many times obviously isn't going to stop so let's stop wasting our time; WP:NOTTHERAPY), yet the community has shown patience time and time again with Koavf. Notwithstanding his recurring problems, he is one of our most prolific editors, and works in underserviced but desperately vital behind-the-scenes areas (MOS:ACCESS comes to mind). So, I think it should be up to the community to determine his fate, whether he's unblocked with (more) conditions, or if the community's patience has finally run out. Or something else entirely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The reply below does not offer me what I had tried to say pretty explicitly I would need to unblock (Edit-warring is not an alternative to discussing how a page should be changed in favor of consensus. does not say anything about how edit warring can happen beyond a set number of reverts). What you've written here feels like it could easily translate into the start of a thread at AN/ANI, and which crucially I think could be framed in a way such that Justin isn't defacto community banned if there's no consensus (always a danger when a block is sent there without being a formal appeal) and thus would still be eligible for unblocking per our normal policy/procedures. So if you think that's the way to go please don't feel like I'm in your way to doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Mean to ping @Ivanvector. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I respect whatever you think makes the most sense for the betterment of the encyclopedia. If that's [x] days off, then a 1/0RR for [y] time, then I appreciate the opportunity. And to reiterate, yes, edit-warring is unconstructive and does not result in a collaborative encyclopedia. Edit-warring is not an alternative to discussing how a page should be changed in favor of consensus. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately this doesn't convince me that you understand what edit warring is which is what I'd asked for in my initial statement. Discussion is how we avoid edit warring but that's an answer to a different question. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Edit warring is behavior where more than one user repeatedly reverts a page in whole or part in lieu of or without reference to discussion for consensus (i.e. if someone continues reverting but also posts to talk as a perfunctory way of having posted to talk but isn't actually engaged in consensus seeking). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe with an indefinite WP: 1RR restriction he can be unblocked(with an indef resuming should he violate it). --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I had been waiting to reply anticipating that Ivan would be starting a community discussion. He has now done so. Let's see what the community says and if the community takes no formal action in terms of the block, we can continue this discussion then. Also should you want to have something posted to AN, please just post it here (perhaps in its own section) and I would be happy to copy it over for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• For those who have been following this thread, I have started a discussion at the administrators noticeboard. Please see WP:AN#User Koavf block review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• I think a 0RR (undo/rollback/Twinkle rollback and restore) plus 1RR (manual edit/loading old revision manually) restriction would be sensible, combined with an addition to your common.css so you can't accidentally forget. I think your contributions are a net positive. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Alex Jazz: that is extremely leniant, giving this is there 21st block. I think the following need to happen.

  1. Koavf's rollback and PCR are revoked. They can be restored after 1 year
  2. Koavf is on a 0RR restriction, which can be appealed after 6 months.
  3. If successful, he is on 1RR, which can be appealed after another 6 months.
  4. If any appeal is declined, he must wait 6 months to re-appeal.
  5. For at least 6 months, he should have his CSS updated. If he refuses to comply, an interface administrator can do it for him, but if he removes it, he should be blocked indefinitely as a block that can only be appealed to interface administrators.
  6. A checkuser should be scanned when he appeals his 0RR/1RR to make sure he wasn't sockpuppetering.
  7. If he has to revert blatant vandalism, he must say "rvv" in his edit summary. Failure to do so may result in blocks of 24 hours for a first offense.

  --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Scottish English editnotice

Template:Scottish English editnotice has been nominated for merging with Template:Scottish English. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Definition lists at Elliot Page

Happily someone else has removed it but I just wanted to point out your error in this reversion: no, that's not how definition lists work.

If we used them that way, they what you were saying is that "'dagger', denotes works that have not yet been released" is the definition of the term "key".

That's not at all how that was structured... "Key" was clearly functioning as a pseudo-header and so should have been either an actual heading or rendered in boldface, as per the MOS guidance on pseudo-headers. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Joeyconnick, Actually, this is a really good point: for it to properly be a description (definition) list, it would have to be in the form ;dagger [line break] :Film is not yet released (i.e. not starting with the word "Key"). Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Joeyconnick This is covered at MOS:DLIST. The <dt> markup ; should not be used for boldfacing (pseudoheadings). We have ''...'' for a reason. The <dd> markup : should not be used for indentation; we have various templates for that, like {{blockindent}} and (for very short stuff}} {{in5}}. Talk pages are just a lost cause at this point, but the actual encyclopedia content should not be intentionally producing invalid markup. If anyone gives you grief about it, point them at MOS:DLIST.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Rape in Islamic law epic discussion

Hi Koavf. A few months ago, an editor (Mcphurphy (talk)) requested me to be a third opinion in a discussion they were having. That discussion and controversy turned out to be a big scholar debate in the talk page of the article Rape in Islamic law. Given that you have a degree in Philosophy maybe you would like to delve into it. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thinker78, Thanks for soliciting my perspective but for the time being, I'll have to pass until/unless either User:Barkeep49 or some community action allows me to edit again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Eero Koivistoinen albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Eero Koivistoinen albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Heart Evangelista albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Heart Evangelista albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brian Wilson - Our Prayer.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brian Wilson - Our Prayer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Life in the African Union

Template:Life in the African Union has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)